PDA

View Full Version : Powermac G5 Dual-core 2.3 v. Mac Pro 2.66 v. MBP 2.16




bearbo
Dec 31, 2006, 09:48 PM
hey everyone, happy new year!

i'm sure someone has experience here, but how does powermac G5 dual core 2.3 compare to MBP CD 2.16... and how does Mac Pro 2.66 compare to them?

i'm especially interested in processing photographs... not necessarily in photoshop as the CS2 comparison is kinda biased, and CS3, well, if you have those data, it's very welcomed.

i'm sure MacPro 2.66 will out perform the former two by far, but by how far? and will PMG5DC out perform MBP CD 2.16 or the other way?

thanks so much!

(i was contemplating whether to post this in mac pro forum or mbp forum, but since im talking about mp and pm, i decided to post it here, hopefully ppl wont have a problem with it :o)



eXan
Dec 31, 2006, 10:49 PM
I would say that 2.3 is slightly faster than 2.16 CD. Mac Pro would destroy them both not only because it's cores are faster, but because it has 4 of them. This is important because apps like Aperture and some features in Photoshop already use all 4, but even if your app doesnt, you can have 2 cpu-intensive apps loaded and working at once, without loss of performance.

If you need mobility and can live with 2 GB RAM, get a MacBook Pro. If you need more, definately get a Mac Pro, or even a Mac Pro + low end MacBook for your portable needs.

Getting a G5 now is pretty pointless.

Hope this helps :)

MovieCutter
Dec 31, 2006, 10:57 PM
My MBP C2D 2.33 smokes my Power Mac G5 2.5Ghz at work in Final Cut rendering, encoding, and Motion workflows. I had a Mac Pro 2.66Ghz, and while the power was great for gaming and Motion due to the x1900XT inside, I noticed little difference between the two in real world use of FCP, Office, Safari, etc. Unless you don't NEED portability, I'd go with the MBP.

bearbo
Dec 31, 2006, 10:58 PM
I would say that 2.3 is slightly faster than 2.16 CD. Mac Pro would destroy them both not only because it's cores are faster, but because it has 4 of them. This is important because apps like Aperture and some features in Photoshop already use all 4, but even if your app doesnt, you can have 2 cpu-intensive apps loaded and working at once, without loss of performance.

If you need mobility and can live with 2 GB RAM, get a MacBook Pro. If you need more, definately get a Mac Pro, or even a Mac Pro + low end MacBook for your portable needs.

Getting a G5 now is pretty pointless.

Hope this helps :)

i'm running everything on my MBP CD 2.16 17"... i'm considering getting a desktop, i was thinking about a G5 dual core, however those aren't exactly that much cheaper than Mac Pro...

MovieCutter
Dec 31, 2006, 11:00 PM
i'm running everything on my MBP CD 2.16 17"... i'm considering getting a desktop, i was thinking about a G5 dual core, however those aren't exactly that much cheaper than Mac Pro...

Unless you absolutely need 4 internal hard drives and Quad Core capabilities, I'd actually go with a 24" iMac with a 7600GT card. Huge screen, simple/elegent and simple design, GPU rivals the x1900 in the Mac Pro, etc.

eXan
Dec 31, 2006, 11:03 PM
My MBP C2D 2.33 smokes my Power Mac G5 2.5Ghz at work in Final Cut rendering, encoding, and Motion workflows. I had a Mac Pro 2.66Ghz, and while the power was great for gaming and Motion due to the x1900XT inside, I noticed little difference between the two in real world use of FCP, Office, Safari, etc. Unless you don't NEED portability, I'd go with the MBP.

Ahem, that is a Core 2 Duo 2.33 vs dual-processor (not dual-core) 2.5 G5. Of course MBP smokes that PM!

i'm running everything on my MBP CD 2.16 17"... i'm considering getting a desktop, i was thinking about a G5 dual core, however those aren't exactly that much cheaper than Mac Pro...

This makes the choice much easier. Mac Pro or iMac 20-24". If you need more than 2 gigs of RAM, get Mac Pro.

MovieCutter
Dec 31, 2006, 11:05 PM
Ahem, that is a Core 2 Duo 2.33 vs dual-processor (not dual-core) 2.5 G5. Of course MBP smokes that PM!


Ahem, I know, but the C2D isn't THAT much different from a CD. Not to mention I figured comparing a slightly faster MBP that he was looking for to a slightly faster Power Mac that he was looking for is equally as valuable. But just for you, my 17" CoreDuo 2.16 ALSO smoked the same Power Mac.

bearbo
Dec 31, 2006, 11:10 PM
Ahem, I know, but the C2D isn't THAT much different from a CD. Not to mention I figured comparing a slightly faster MBP that he was looking for to a slightly faster Power Mac that he was looking for is equally as valuable. But just for you, my 17" CoreDuo 2.16 ALSO smoked the same Power Mac.

i thought DC 2.3 is faster than DP 2.5, was i mistaken?

i agree the stock version of imac is probably similar to stock version of mac pro, but the upgradability of the mac pro is much better. that's what i was looking for

MovieCutter
Dec 31, 2006, 11:13 PM
i thought DC 2.3 is faster than DP 2.5, was i mistaken?

i agree the stock version of imac is probably similar to stock version of mac pro, but the upgradability of the mac pro is much better. that's what i was looking for

They're roughly the same. Dual proc faster in some areas, dual core faster in others. Still, the margin by which the CD or the C2D MBPs is faster is significant, so it really doesn't matter. If you need the upgradeability, then go with the Mac Pro, but wait a week or two.

bearbo
Dec 31, 2006, 11:25 PM
They're roughly the same. Dual proc faster in some areas, dual core faster in others. Still, the margin by which the CD or the C2D MBPs is faster is significant, so it really doesn't matter. If you need the upgradeability, then go with the Mac Pro, but wait a week or two.

yeah, i'd definitely wait til after MWSF..

so the consensus is powermac g5 dual core 2.3 is similar (or is it slightly faster/slower) than mbp 2.16 CD?
if fast at all, is it gonna be significant enough for me to detect it with photoshop, aperture, autopano, and etc?

am i gonna feel the significant speed boost with mac pro?

or for what i do, it's not gonna be significant?

thanks!

MovieCutter
Dec 31, 2006, 11:41 PM
yeah, i'd definitely wait til after MWSF..

so the consensus is powermac g5 dual core 2.3 is similar (or is it slightly faster/slower) than mbp 2.16 CD?
if fast at all, is it gonna be significant enough for me to detect it with photoshop, aperture, autopano, and etc?

am i gonna feel the significant speed boost with mac pro?

or for what i do, it's not gonna be significant?

thanks!

The MBP is significantly faster in all Universal apps that I've tested (Final Cut, universal games, Handbrake, etc.) The MBP is a little slower in Office and Photoshop, but those apps will catch up in a few months. I'd go with an Intel iMac or refurbed Mac Pro. The G5's day is over.

eXan
Jan 1, 2007, 12:48 AM
Ahem, I know, but the C2D isn't THAT much different from a CD. Not to mention I figured comparing a slightly faster MBP that he was looking for to a slightly faster Power Mac that he was looking for is equally as valuable. But just for you, my 17" CoreDuo 2.16 ALSO smoked the same Power Mac.

Ok, you know better because you can test the machines by yourself :o

They're roughly the same. Dual proc faster in some areas, dual core faster in others. Still, the margin by which the CD or the C2D MBPs is faster is significant, so it really doesn't matter. If you need the upgradeability, then go with the Mac Pro, but wait a week or two.

Yes, 2.3 DC and 2.5 DP are roughly the same.

Anyway, the machines we are comparing here have about the same processor speed (except for Mac Pro, which has double CPU power, if utilized correctly) - the difference is not significant enough to start flaming each other :D :p